THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS requirement only when payment is made to shareholders. Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, every company is expected to maintain a register of shareholders under section 150 of the Companies Act, 1956. Company is not obliged to maintain any register wherein details of such concerns may be maintained to which provisions of section 2

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS requirement only when payment is made to shareholders. Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, every company is expected to maintain a register of shareholders under section 150 of the Companies Act, 1956. Company is not obliged to maintain any register wherein details of such concerns may be maintained to which provisions of section 2

THE SANKHEDA JETPUR PAVI TALUKA GINNING PRESSING COTTON SALE CO.OP SOCIETY LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS deductions by these companies, which were subsequently claimed by the assessee. This deduction was deemed disallowable, resulting in an underassessment of income amounting to Rs. 24,51,022/-. Thus, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was determined to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In the 263 notice, it was mentioned that

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

TDS on a sum\nof Rs.22,02,000/- under section 194J of the Act, which was noted\nby the ld.Pr.CIT to have been deducted on payment of\nRs.17,34,150/- only.\n\n17. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before the\nld.Pr.CIT in this regard are reproduced hereunder:\n\n“Issue 2

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were ITA Nos. 813 & 987/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2 heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2

GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were ITA Nos. 813 & 987/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2 heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2

APEX HEALTH CARE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS Net Amount Amount Amino 5 methyl Thaizol 1 01-07-2014 JW-01/14-15 474 150 71100 1422 69678 5 01-09-2014 JW-05/14-15. 1652 150 247800 4956 242844 11 24-01-2015 JW-12/14-15 2700 450 1215000 24300 1190700 13 31-01-2015 JW-13/14-15

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

150 taxmann.com 528 (Ahmedabad – Trib.), while dealing with the similar issue, the ITAT Ahmedabad had made the following observations in this regard: “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the records of the case, we observe that in the instant facts, the Assessing Officer had made detailed inquiries into the claim

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

150/-. Accordingly the question comes to determine the amount at which depreciation has to be claimed. Thus, we are of the view that the issue with respect to the car namely Audi A-6 needs reconsideration at the level of the AO. 20.3 With respect to the car namely INNOVA, we note that the assessee has filed the copy

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

150/-. Accordingly the question comes to determine the amount at which depreciation has to be claimed. Thus, we are of the view that the issue with respect to the car namely Audi A-6 needs reconsideration at the level of the AO. 20.3 With respect to the car namely INNOVA, we note that the assessee has filed the copy

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

150/-. Accordingly the question comes to determine the amount at which depreciation has to be claimed. Thus, we are of the view that the issue with respect to the car namely Audi A-6 needs reconsideration at the level of the AO. 20.3 With respect to the car namely INNOVA, we note that the assessee has filed the copy